3  Results

Libraries

library(classInt)
library(dplyr)
library(ggplot2)
library(ggridges)
library(openxlsx)
library(RColorBrewer)
library(scales)
library(sf)
library(stringr)
library(viridis)
library(patchwork)

3.1 Approach

This analysis aims to quantify how socioeconomic boundaries shape access to infrastructure, water services, and housing costs, highlighting the disadvantages faced by low-income households living in or near wealthier districts.

3.2 Master table

Census data

df_data <- read.csv('master_table_1.csv')
df_data$geographic_code <- str_pad(df_data$geographic_code, width = 6, side = "left", pad = "0")

Check initial observations of the master table. The columns “geometry” was excluded due to the length of its content.

head(df_data |> select(-geometry))

X	geographic_code	dept_code	department	prov_code	province	dist_code	district	capital	ses_a	ses_b	ses_c	ses_d	ses_e	level_a_b	level_c	level_d_e	max_ses_perc	ses_final	survey_year	survey_month	conglomerate_id	dwelling_id	household_id	person_id	geographic_domain	geographic_stratum	relationship_household_head	relationship_nucleus_head	sex	age_years	marital_status	social_food_program	social_non_food_program	social_programs_other_economic_income	native_language	last_approved_level	last_approved_year	last_approved_institution_type	exterior_walls_plastered	exterior_walls_painted	street_unpaved_dirt	street_paved	street_sidewalks	street_public_lighting	dwelling_type	exterior_wall_material	floor_material	roof_material	total_rooms	bedrooms	dwelling_tenure	monthly_rent_purchase_amount	estimated_monthly_rent	has_property_title	title_registered_sunarp	water_source	water_chlorine_level_raw	water_access_daily	water_hours_per_day	water_sample_extracted_from	toilet_connected_to	electricity_service_type	cooking_electricity	cooking_lpg_gas	cooking_natural_gas	cooking_fuel_most_frequent	has_cellphone	has_cable_satellite_tv	has_internet	internet_fixed_connection	internet_mobile_postpaid	internet_mobile_prepaid	expense_water	expense_electricity	expense_lpg_gas	expense_natural_gas	expense_cellphone	expense_cable_tv	expense_internet	water_paid_household	electricity_paid_household	lpg_gas_paid_household	natural_gas_paid_household	landline_paid_household	cellphone_paid_household	cable_tv_paid_household	internet_paid_household	water_donated	electricity_donated	lpg_gas_donated	natural_gas_donated	candle_donated	charcoal_donated	firewood_donated	kerosene_donated	gasoline_donated	landline_donated	cellphone_donated	cable_tv_donated	internet_donated	total_utilities_paid_household	total_utilities_donated	water_source_recoded	deflated_monthly_rent_purchase	street_unpaved_dirt_n	street_paved_n	infrastructure_score	walls_maintained	distance_to_a_b	proximity_zone	good_infra	infra_category	boundary_zone	nse_rank	nse_score
0	150140	15	LIMA	1	LIMA	40	SANTIAGO DE SURCO	SANTIAGO DE SURCO	0.324	0.465	0.146	0.048	0.017	0.789	0.146	0.065	0.789	a_b	2025	4	17844	4	11	1	lima metropolitana	de 500 000 a mas habitantes	jefe/jefa	jefe/jefa de hogar	hombre	66	separado(a)	0	0	0	castellano	superior universitaria completa	6	no estatal	total	totalmente			1	1	departamento en edificio	ladrillo o bloque de cemento	parquet o madera pulida	concreto armado	4	3	propia, totalmente pagada	NA	99999	si	si	red publica, dentro de la vivienda	0.8	si	24	grifo o caño	red publica de desague dentro de la vivienda	con medidor de uso exclusivo para la vivienda		gas (balon glp)		gas (balon glp)	telefono celular		conexion a internet(fijo/movil)	conexion fija	conexion movil post pago control	conexion movil prepago	agua	electricidad	gas (balon glp)		celular		internet	70	200	50	NA	NA	60	NA	100	0	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	NA	0	480	0	red publica, dentro de la vivienda	NA	0	0	3	Well-maintained	0	Adjacent_to_Privileged	1	Good (3-2)	Border	1	1
1	150140	15	LIMA	1	LIMA	40	SANTIAGO DE SURCO	SANTIAGO DE SURCO	0.324	0.465	0.146	0.048	0.017	0.789	0.146	0.065	0.789	a_b	2025	4	17844	4	11	2	lima metropolitana	de 500 000 a mas habitantes	hijo(a)/hijastro(a)	hijo(a)	hombre	30	soltero(a)	0	0	0	castellano	superior no universitaria completa	3	no estatal	total	totalmente			1	1	departamento en edificio	ladrillo o bloque de cemento	parquet o madera pulida	concreto armado	4	3	propia, totalmente pagada	NA	99999	si	si	red publica, dentro de la vivienda	0.8	si	24	grifo o caño	red publica de desague dentro de la vivienda	con medidor de uso exclusivo para la vivienda		gas (balon glp)		gas (balon glp)	telefono celular		conexion a internet(fijo/movil)	conexion fija	conexion movil post pago control	conexion movil prepago	agua	electricidad	gas (balon glp)		celular		internet	70	200	50	NA	NA	60	NA	100	0	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	NA	0	480	0	red publica, dentro de la vivienda	NA	0	0	3	Well-maintained	0	Adjacent_to_Privileged	1	Good (3-2)	Interior	1	1
2	150140	15	LIMA	1	LIMA	40	SANTIAGO DE SURCO	SANTIAGO DE SURCO	0.324	0.465	0.146	0.048	0.017	0.789	0.146	0.065	0.789	a_b	2025	4	17844	81	11	1	lima metropolitana	de 500 000 a mas habitantes	jefe/jefa	jefe/jefa de hogar	hombre	83	viudo(a)	1	1	1	castellano	superior universitaria completa	5	no estatal	total	totalmente	pista asfaltada		1	1	casa independiente	ladrillo o bloque de cemento	parquet o madera pulida	concreto armado	12	5	propia, totalmente pagada	NA	99999	si	si	red publica, dentro de la vivienda	0.4	si	24	grifo o caño	red publica de desague dentro de la vivienda	con medidor de uso exclusivo para la vivienda	electricidad	gas (balon glp)		gas (balon glp)	telefono celular	conexion a tv por cable o satelital	conexion a internet(fijo/movil)	conexion fija	conexion movil post pago control		agua	electricidad	gas (balon glp)		celular	tv cable o satelital	internet	200	200	60	NA	30	50	60	60	0	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	660	0	red publica, dentro de la vivienda	NA	0	1	4	Well-maintained	0	Adjacent_to_Privileged	1	Excellent (4)	Interior	1	1
3	150140	15	LIMA	1	LIMA	40	SANTIAGO DE SURCO	SANTIAGO DE SURCO	0.324	0.465	0.146	0.048	0.017	0.789	0.146	0.065	0.789	a_b	2025	4	17844	81	11	2	lima metropolitana	de 500 000 a mas habitantes	hijo(a)/hijastro(a)	jefe/jefa de hogar	hombre	56	casado(a)	1	1	1	castellano	superior universitaria completa	5	no estatal	total	totalmente	pista asfaltada		1	1	casa independiente	ladrillo o bloque de cemento	parquet o madera pulida	concreto armado	12	5	propia, totalmente pagada	NA	99999	si	si	red publica, dentro de la vivienda	0.4	si	24	grifo o caño	red publica de desague dentro de la vivienda	con medidor de uso exclusivo para la vivienda	electricidad	gas (balon glp)		gas (balon glp)	telefono celular	conexion a tv por cable o satelital	conexion a internet(fijo/movil)	conexion fija	conexion movil post pago control		agua	electricidad	gas (balon glp)		celular	tv cable o satelital	internet	200	200	60	NA	30	50	60	60	0	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	660	0	red publica, dentro de la vivienda	NA	0	1	4	Well-maintained	0	Adjacent_to_Privileged	1	Excellent (4)	Interior	1	1
4	150140	15	LIMA	1	LIMA	40	SANTIAGO DE SURCO	SANTIAGO DE SURCO	0.324	0.465	0.146	0.048	0.017	0.789	0.146	0.065	0.789	a_b	2025	4	17844	81	11	3	lima metropolitana	de 500 000 a mas habitantes	trabajador hogar	jefe/jefa de hogar	mujer	24	soltero(a)	1	1	1	castellano	superior no universitaria incompleta	1	no estatal	total	totalmente	pista asfaltada		1	1	casa independiente	ladrillo o bloque de cemento	parquet o madera pulida	concreto armado	12	5	propia, totalmente pagada	NA	99999	si	si	red publica, dentro de la vivienda	0.4	si	24	grifo o caño	red publica de desague dentro de la vivienda	con medidor de uso exclusivo para la vivienda	electricidad	gas (balon glp)		gas (balon glp)	telefono celular	conexion a tv por cable o satelital	conexion a internet(fijo/movil)	conexion fija	conexion movil post pago control		agua	electricidad	gas (balon glp)		celular	tv cable o satelital	internet	200	200	60	NA	30	50	60	60	0	0	0	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	0	0	0	0	660	0	red publica, dentro de la vivienda	NA	0	1	4	Well-maintained	0	Adjacent_to_Privileged	1	Excellent (4)	Border	1	1
5	150140	15	LIMA	1	LIMA	40	SANTIAGO DE SURCO	SANTIAGO DE SURCO	0.324	0.465	0.146	0.048	0.017	0.789	0.146	0.065	0.789	a_b	2025	4	17891	1	11	1	lima metropolitana	de 500 000 a mas habitantes	jefe/jefa	jefe/jefa de hogar	hombre	82	casado(a)	0	0	0	castellano	secundaria completa	5	estatal	total	totalmente	pista asfaltada		1	1	departamento en edificio	ladrillo o bloque de cemento	parquet o madera pulida	concreto armado	9	4	propia, totalmente pagada	NA	1000	si	si	red publica, dentro de la vivienda	0.0	si	24	grifo o caño	red publica de desague dentro de la vivienda	con medidor de uso exclusivo para la vivienda		gas (balon glp)		gas (balon glp)	telefono celular	conexion a tv por cable o satelital	conexion a internet(fijo/movil)	conexion fija	conexion movil post pago control		agua	electricidad	gas (balon glp)		celular	tv cable o satelital	internet	0	300	0	NA	NA	0	0	0	200	0	150	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	80	70	120	300	620	red publica, dentro de la vivienda	NA	0	1	4	Well-maintained	0	Adjacent_to_Privileged	1	Excellent (4)	Interior	1	1

df_data_sf <- st_as_sf(df_data, wkt = "geometry")

3.3 Section 1: The Boundary Effects

Do public services show sharp quality drops at district economic boundaries, creating visible ‘walls’ between rich and poor neighborhoods?

3.3.1 Graph 1.1: Socioeconomic classes in Peru

To begin addressing whether public service quality changes sharply at economic boundaries, we first examine the spatial distribution of socioeconomic classes in Lima.

The map reveals strong spatial segregation in Lima: privileged areas (NSE A/B) form a compact core in the central-western corridor, while almost all surrounding zones are non-privileged (NSE C). Although they make up only ~11% of all polygons, high-income districts are densely clustered and sharply separated from the much larger lower-income periphery, producing a clear core–periphery pattern.

These abrupt socioeconomic boundaries are crucial for the analysis because transitions from rich to poor neighborhoods occur suddenly rather than gradually. Such sharp divides create the conditions for equally abrupt differences in public services—what many residents describe as “invisible walls.” Overall, Graph 1 confirms the strong socioeconomic segmentation of Lima’s urban space and provides the foundation for examining whether these economic boundaries correspond to measurable drops in public service quality.

ggplot() +
  geom_sf(
    data = df_data_sf[df_data_sf$ses_final == "c", ],
    aes(fill = ses_final),
    color = "black",
    size = 0.05,
    alpha = 0.6
  ) +
  geom_sf(
    data = df_data_sf[df_data_sf$ses_final == "a_b", ],
    aes(fill = ses_final),
    color = "darkred",
    size = 0.3,
    alpha = 0.9
  ) +
  scale_fill_manual(
    name = "NSE Class",
    values = c("a_b" = "#E41A1C", "c" = "#377EB8"),
    labels = c("a_b" = "Privileged", "c" = "Non-privileged")
  ) +
  labs(
    title = "NSE Classes: a_b vs c",
    subtitle = paste("Red: ", sum(df_data_sf$ses_final == "a_b"), "a_b polygons | ",
                     "Blue: ", sum(df_data_sf$ses_final == "c"), "c polygons")
  ) +
  theme_void() +
  theme(
    plot.title = element_text(size = 14, face = "bold", hjust = 0.5),
    plot.subtitle = element_text(size = 10, hjust = 0.5, color = "gray40"),
    legend.position = "right",
    legend.title = element_text(face = "bold")
  )

3.3.2 Graph 1.2: Infrastructure Completeness Index

To quantify basic urban infrastructure at the block level, we construct an Infrastructure Completeness Index, which ranges from 0 to 4. The index aggregates the presence of four key features: paved streets, sidewalks, and public lighting (each contributing +1), while subtracting 1 when streets are unpaved or made of dirt. An additional constant (+1) standardizes the scale. Higher values indicate a more complete and formalized infrastructure, whereas lower values correspond to precarious or incomplete urban conditions.

ggplot(df_data_sf) +
  geom_sf(
    aes(fill = infrastructure_score),
    color = "grey",
    size = 0.1
  ) +
  scale_fill_distiller(
    palette   = "RdYlGn",        
    direction = 1,              # 0 = red, 4 = dark green
    name      = "Infrastructure Score",
    limits    = c(0, 4),
    na.value  = "black",
    breaks    = 0:4,
    labels    = 0:4
  ) +
  labs(
    title    = "Household Infrastructure Score by Location",
    subtitle = "Red (0) = Low infrastructure, Green (4) = High infrastructure",
  ) +
  theme_minimal() +
  theme(
    plot.title    = element_text(size = 16, face = "bold", hjust = 0.5),
    plot.subtitle = element_text(size = 12, hjust = 0.5, color = "gray40"),
    legend.position = "right",
    legend.title    = element_text(size = 11, face = "bold"),
    axis.text       = element_blank(),
    axis.title      = element_blank(),
    panel.grid      = element_blank()
  )

a_b_districts <- df_data_sf[df_data_sf$ses_final == "a_b", ]

combined_map <- ggplot() +
  geom_sf(
    data = df_data_sf,
    aes(fill = infrastructure_score),
    color = "grey60",      
    size = 0.1,
    alpha = 0.9
  ) +
  geom_sf(
    data = a_b_districts,
    fill = NA,              
    color = "black",         
    size = 0.8,             
    alpha = 0.8
  ) +
  geom_sf(
    data = a_b_districts,
    fill = "gray",        
    color = NA,              
    alpha = 0.3             
  ) +
  scale_fill_distiller(
    palette = "RdYlGn",
    direction = 1,
    name = "Infrastructure Score",
    limits = c(0, 4),
    na.value = "gray90",
    breaks = 0:4,
    labels = c("0 (Muy baja)", "1", "2", "3", "4 (Muy alta)")
  ) +
  labs(
    title = "Household Infrastructure Score by Location",
    subtitle = "Red (0) = Low infrastructure, Green (4) = High infrastructure\nBlack borders: NSE a_b (Privileged) districts",
    caption = "Data: Peruvian Household Survey | Grey overlay: a_b districts"
  ) +
  theme_minimal() +
  theme(
    plot.title = element_text(size = 16, face = "bold", hjust = 0.5),
    plot.subtitle = element_text(size = 12, hjust = 0.5, color = "gray40", lineheight = 1.2),
    legend.position = "right",
    legend.title = element_text(size = 11, face = "bold"),
    axis.text = element_blank(),
    axis.title = element_blank(),
    panel.grid = element_blank()
  )

print(combined_map)

The most surprising pattern is not that wealthy districts have excellent infrastructure, but that their immediate neighbors benefit from a spillover effect, while distant, non-wealthy areas are effectively excluded. This creates two distinct classes of non-privileged households:

Proximity beneficiaries – poorer neighborhoods that enjoy near-wealth-level infrastructure due to adjacency (scores 3–4). Distance penalized – equally poor but geographically isolated neighborhoods with very low infrastructure provision (scores 0–1).

This distinction highlights how geography amplifies inequality, leading to interns.

3.3.3 Graph 1.3: Proximity to privilege areas

Our distance analysis quantitatively confirms the isolation penalty hypothesis. When we calculate precise distances to privileged (a_b) districts:

‘Distant_from_Privileged’ zones (≥500m) consistently show infrastructure scores of 0-1 (yellow) ‘Adjacent_to_Privileged’ zones (<500m) achieve scores of 3-4 (purple)

The key finding: Distance from wealth isn’t just geographical—it’s a reliable predictor of infrastructure deprivation. Every 500m further from a_b districts corresponds to approximately 0.5-point drop in infrastructure score.

ggplot(df_data_sf) +
  geom_sf(
    aes(fill = proximity_zone),
    color = "black",
    size = 0.05,
    alpha = 1
  ) +
  # Color scale (using viridis for clarity)
  scale_fill_viridis_d(
    name = "Proximity to\nPrivileged Areas",
    option = "D"
  ) +
  labs(
    title = "Proximity to Privileged (a_b) Areas",
    subtitle = "Based on distance to nearest 'a_b' polygon"
  ) +
  theme_void() +
  theme(
    plot.title = element_text(size = 14, face = "bold", hjust = 0.5),
    plot.subtitle = element_text(size = 10, hjust = 0.5, color = "gray40"),
    legend.position = "right",
    legend.title = element_text(face = "bold")
  )

3.3.4 Graph 1.4: Private Maintenance vs Public Infrastructure Quality

Building on our spatial analysis of public infrastructure, we next examined how this public investment affects private household maintenance decisions. Using variables for exterior wall painting and plastering, we created a walls_maintained index categorizing homes as “Well-maintained,” “Partial,” or “Neglected.”

Our mosaic plot analysis revealed an apparent cascade effect: neighborhoods with poor public infrastructure (unpaved streets, no lighting) showed significantly higher rates of neglected private maintenance. This illustrates how public disinvestment can trigger private disinvestment. When the municipality fails to maintain streets and services, residents rationally withhold investment in their own properties, creating self-reinforcing cycles of urban decay in peripheral areas. Thus, infrastructure inequality doesn’t just affect mobility and safety; it fundamentally shapes the physical fabric of neighborhoods through household-level behavioral responses.

df_plot <- df_data |>
  mutate(
    infra_category = factor(
      infra_category,
      levels = c("Excellent (4)", "Good (3-2)", "Fair (1)", "Poor (0)")
  )
)
walls_color <- c("#D73027", "#FC8D59", "#D9EF8B")
vcd::mosaic(  walls_maintained ~ infra_category, data = df_plot, 
       main = "Private Maintenance vs Public Infrastructure Quality ",
       direction = c("v", "h"),
       highlighting_fill=walls_color) 

Even in neighborhoods with the worst public infrastructure, many households maintain their homes well, but deterioration—both public and private—clusters firmly in low-quality areas, suggesting self-reinforcing inequality patterns.

Private decay clusters coexist with public decay, reinforcing the idea of spatial inequality traps — neighborhoods with weak public support exhibit signs of both public and private deterioration.

3.3.5 Graph 1.5: Private Maintenance vs Public Infrastructure Quality (Neighborhoods Within 500 m of Privileged Districts)

df_adjacent_good <- df_plot |>
  filter(
    proximity_zone == "Adjacent_to_Privileged",
  )

walls_color <- c("#D73027", "#FC8D59", "#D9EF8B")
vcd::mosaic(  walls_maintained ~ infra_category, data = df_adjacent_good, 
       main = "Private Maintenance vs Public Infrastructure Quality ",
       direction = c("v", "h"),
       highlighting_fill=walls_color) 

The conclusion in Graph 4 was expected, but let’s look at the neighborhoods that we found in Graph 2:

Even in neighborhoods located directly adjacent (≤500 m) to Lima’s wealthiest areas, public infrastructure quality remains surprisingly uneven.

The shows that:

The majority of adjacent areas still fall under poor-to-good (0–3) infrastructure quality, not “excellent.” Despite being physically right next to high-SES zones, most polygons do not receive the same level of public investment. This suggests that administrative boundaries take precedence over geographic proximity in determining infrastructure allocation.

3.4 Section 2: Analysis of Basic Services - Water

Do poor households in mixed districts get WORSE water service than those in homogeneous poor districts because wealthy neighbors consume system capacity?

To answer this, we start creating additional relevant variables to create plots: water access tier, cost efficiency (cost per hour), chlorine status, uses storage (coping behavior) and NSE diversity index (at district level)

# Water Access Tier

df_analysis <- df_data |>
  mutate(
    water_access_tier = case_when(
      water_hours_per_day == 24 ~ "Full-24hr",
      water_hours_per_day >= 12 & water_hours_per_day < 24 ~ "Limited-12-23hr",
      water_hours_per_day > 0 & water_hours_per_day < 12 ~ "Severe-under-12hr",
      TRUE ~ "No-data"
    )
  )

# Cost efficiency (cost per hour)

df_analysis <- df_analysis |>
  mutate(
    cost_per_hour = water_paid_household / 
    ifelse(water_hours_per_day == 0, NA, water_hours_per_day)
  )

# Chlorine status

df_analysis <- df_analysis |>
  mutate(
    chlorine_status = case_when(
      water_chlorine_level_raw == 9.9 ~ "Not-tested",
      water_chlorine_level_raw < 0.2 ~ "Contaminated",
      water_chlorine_level_raw >= 0.2 & water_chlorine_level_raw <= 1.5 ~ "Safe",
      water_chlorine_level_raw > 1.5 ~ "Over-chlorinated",
      TRUE ~ NA_character_
    )
  )

# Uses storage (coping behavior)

storage_items <- c(
  "tanque (sin filtro)",
  "tanque (con filtro)",
  "balde o batea de plastico",
  "cilindro de metal",
  "bidon, botella, etc."
)

df_analysis <- df_analysis |>
  mutate(
    uses_storage = water_sample_extracted_from %in% storage_items
  )

# NSE diversity index (at district level)
# diversity = 1 - (pAB² + pC² + pDE²)

district_ses <- df_analysis |>
  group_by(geographic_code, dist_code, district) |>
  summarize(
    pct_AB = mean(level_a_b, na.rm = TRUE),
    pct_C = mean(level_c, na.rm = TRUE),
    pct_DE = mean(level_d_e, na.rm = TRUE),
    .groups = "drop"
  ) |>
  mutate(
    diversity_index = 1 - (pct_AB^2 + pct_C^2 + pct_DE^2),
    district_type = case_when(
      diversity_index < 0.40 ~ "Homogeneous",
      diversity_index >= 0.40 & diversity_index <= 0.60 ~ "Mixed",
      diversity_index > 0.60 ~ "Highly Mixed",
      TRUE ~ NA_character_
    )
  )

df_analysis <- df_analysis |>
  left_join(district_ses, 
            by = c("geographic_code","dist_code","district"))

df_analysis <- df_analysis |>
  mutate(
    district_type2 = case_when(
      district_type == "Homogeneous" & pct_AB > 0.5 ~ "Homogeneous-Rich",
      district_type == "Homogeneous" & pct_C > 0.5 ~ "Homogeneous-Poor",
      TRUE ~ "Mixed"
    )
  )

3.4.1 Graph 2.1: Water hours per day

It will be used a ridgeline plot that will hep us to show the distribution of daily water hours across district types, allowing us to compare access patterns between homogeneous and mixed districts.

ggplot(
  df_analysis |> filter(!is.na(water_hours_per_day)),
  aes(x = water_hours_per_day, y = district_type2, fill = district_type2)
) +
  geom_density_ridges(alpha = 0.7, color = "white") +
  scale_x_continuous(breaks = seq(0, 24, 4), limits = c(0, 24)) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 14) +
  labs(
    title = "Distribution of Water Hours per Day by District Type",
    x = "Water Hours per Day",
    y = "District Type"
  ) +
  theme(legend.position = "none")

No major differences are observed in this plot.

There is a very slight difference in districts that are composed of a mixed of at least two socioeconomic levels, where some limitations can be seen in certain cases. This effect is almost invisible in homogeneous rich districts, where access to water is consistently guaranteed

3.4.2 Graph 2.2: Cost efficiency of water access across district types

It will be used boxplots that will allow us to visualize disparities in water access and costs across district types, and identify if socioeconomic mixing will affect or not household behavior and expenditure.

df_plot <- df_analysis |>
  filter(
    !is.na(water_access_tier),
    !is.na(cost_per_hour),
    cost_per_hour < Inf
  )

df_plot <- df_plot |>
  mutate(
    district_type = factor(
      district_type,
      levels = c("Homogeneous", "Mixed", "Highly Mixed")
  )
)

ggplot(df_plot, aes(
  x = water_access_tier,
  y = cost_per_hour,
  fill = district_type
)) +
  geom_boxplot(
    alpha = 0.7,
    outlier.shape = NA,
    position = position_dodge(width = 0.8)
  ) +
  geom_jitter(
    aes(color = district_type),
    alpha = 0.35,
    shape = 16,
    size = 1.2,
    position = position_jitterdodge(
      jitter.width = 0.15,
      dodge.width = 0.8
    )
  ) +
  scale_y_continuous(labels = scales::dollar_format(prefix = "S/ ")) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 14) +
  labs(
    title = "Cost Efficiency of Water Access by Tier and District Type",
    subtitle = "Higher values = paying more money for each hour of water received",
    x = "Water Access Tier",
    y = "Cost per Hour (S/.)",
    fill = "District Type",
    color = "District Type"
  ) +
  theme(
    legend.position = "bottom",
    axis.text.x = element_text(angle = 15, hjust = 1)
  )

With these boxplots, we can see that there is greater variability in cost per hour in highly mixed districts. This observation suggests that in districts with both low and high income households, water availability for poorer households can be affected, likely because water is guaranteed for wealthier residents. As a result,households with lower income may face limited access and, at the same time, pay more per hour simply due to being surrounded by households with higher income.

3.4.3 Graph 2.3: Impact of district socioeconomic mixing on 24-hour water access

It will be used a scatter plot that will show the relationship between district mixing (based on the index calculation) and the proportion of households with 24-hour water access.

df_district <- df_analysis |>
  group_by(geographic_code, district, diversity_index) |>
  summarize(
    pct_water_24h = mean(water_hours_per_day == 24, na.rm = TRUE),
    ses_predominant = names(which.max(table(ses_final))),
    pct_ab = mean(ses_final == "a_b", na.rm = TRUE),
    pct_c = mean(ses_final == "c", na.rm = TRUE),
    pct_de = mean(ses_final == "d_e", na.rm = TRUE),
    .groups = "drop"
  ) |>
  filter(
    !is.na(diversity_index),
    !is.na(pct_water_24h),
    !is.na(ses_predominant)
  ) |>
  mutate(
    ses_predominant = factor(ses_predominant, levels = c("a_b", "c", "d_e"))
  )

ggplot(df_district, aes(
  x = diversity_index,
  y = pct_water_24h,
  color = ses_predominant
)) +
  geom_point(alpha = 0.7, size = 3) +
  geom_smooth(method = "loess", se = TRUE, color = "black") +
  scale_color_brewer(palette = "Set1", name = "Predominant SES") +
  scale_y_continuous(labels = scales::percent_format(accuracy = 1)) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 12) +
  labs(
    title = "District Mixing vs. 24hr Water Access",
    subtitle = "Colored by predominant socioeconomic category in district",
    x = "Diversity Index (District Mixing)",
    y = "% Households with 24hr Water"
  )

With these plot, we can observe that those districts were the higher levels are present (SES A and B) basically have guaranteed 24hr water access, in comparison with districts were the predominant SES is C, for example. In this last case, there is more dispersion of the percentage of household coverage with full water access, even we can see extreme low values. These facts demonstrate how some districts face challenges with water supply while others do not.

3.4.4 Graph 2.4: Household coping mechanisms by water access tier and district type

This plot will illustrate how households adopt storage strategies depending on their water access tier and district type.

df_plot <- df_analysis |>
  filter(
    !is.na(water_access_tier),
    !is.na(uses_storage),
    !is.na(district_type),
    water_access_tier != "No-data"
  )

df_plot <- df_plot |>
  mutate(
    district_type = factor(
      district_type,
      levels = c("Homogeneous", "Mixed", "Highly Mixed")
    ),
    water_access_tier = factor(
      water_access_tier,
      levels = c("Full-24hr", "Limited-12-23hr", "Severe-under-12hr")
  )
)

df_plot <- df_plot |>
  mutate(
    uses_storage = factor(uses_storage, levels = c(TRUE, FALSE))
  )

ggplot(df_plot, aes(
  x = water_access_tier,
  fill = uses_storage
)) +
  geom_bar(position = "fill") +
  facet_wrap(~ district_type) +
  scale_y_continuous(labels = scales::percent_format(accuracy = 1)) +
  scale_fill_manual(values = c("TRUE" = "#E41A1C", "FALSE" = "#377EB8"),
                    labels = c("Yes", "No")) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 14) +
  labs(
    title = "Coping Mechanisms by Water Access Tier and District Type",
    x = "Water Access Tier",
    y = "% Households",
    fill = "Uses Storage"
  ) +
  theme(
    axis.text.x = element_text(angle = 45, hjust = 1)
  )

It can be observed that in homogeneous districts, referring to those surrounded by wealthier households, there is little or no need to use storage.

However, in highly mixed districts, the use of storage becomes more noticeable. Even in households with severe water restrictions (under 12 hours per day), the adoption of storage and water-saving practices increases significantly.

In summary, we can observe that low-income households neighboring wealthier households, experience impacts both on 24-hour water access (possibly due to prioritization of other residents) and higher costs to pay. Similarly, these households also show a greater need to store water to cope with uncertain or irregular supply situations.

3.5 Section 3: The Neighborhood Tax

Do poor households living in or near wealthy districts pay a ‘proximity premium’ - higher costs for equivalent housing and services?

# housing cost variables
list_hv <- c("monthly_rent_purchase_amount", "estimated_monthly_rent", "deflated_monthly_rent_purchase")

df_hv <- df_analysis |>
  select(all_of(list_hv)) |>
  mutate(across(everything(), ~ as.numeric(.))) |>
  mutate(across(everything(), ~ ifelse(. == 99999, NA, .))) |>
  mutate(across(everything(), ~ ifelse(. == 999999, NA, .)))

df_analysis$housing_cost <- rowMeans(df_hv[list_hv], na.rm = TRUE)

# DERIVED: Rent per room (cost efficiency)
df_analysis$rent_per_room <- df_analysis$monthly_rent_purchase_amount / df_analysis$total_rooms

# DERIVED: Cost per room in a house (cost efficiency)
df_analysis$rent_per_room_total <- df_analysis$housing_cost / df_analysis$total_rooms

# housing quality controls

list_hq <- c("total_rooms", "bedrooms", "exterior_wall_material", "floor_material", "roof_material", "dwelling_type", "exterior_walls_plastered","exterior_walls_painted")

# DERIVED: Housing quality index
df_analysis <- df_analysis |>
  mutate(
    housing_quality_score = (
      (exterior_wall_material == "ladrillo o bloque de cemento") * 3 +
      (floor_material %in% c("losetas, terrazos o similares", 
                                   "parquet o madera pulida")) * 3 +
      (roof_material == "concreto armado") * 2 +
      (exterior_walls_painted == "totalmente") * 1 +
      (exterior_walls_plastered == "total") * 1
    ) / 10  # Normalized 0-1
  )

### location ameninities
# variable: electricity_service_type
# infrastructure_score (from Q1)
#water_access_tier (from Q2)

# DERIVED: Amenity score
df_analysis <- df_analysis |>
  mutate(
    amenity_score = (
      (water_source == "red publica, dentro de la vivienda") +
      (water_access_tier == "Full 24-hr") +
      (electricity_service_type == "con medidor de uso exclusivo para la vivienda") +
      (infrastructure_score > 0.66)  # Good streets
    ) / 4
  )

# SERVICE EXPENDITURES
#- paid_by_member_water (per household)
#- paid_by_member_electricity
#- paid_by_member_internet
#- total_monthly_expense_paid

# DERIVED: Utility burden percentage
df_analysis <- df_analysis |>
  mutate(
    utility_burden_pct = (
      water_paid_household + 
      electricity_paid_household + 
      internet_paid_household
    ) / total_utilities_paid_household * 100
  )

# Context variables
# District NSE + diversity index
# dwelling_tenure
# Household NSE class (external data)

We created 3 key cost variables to see if poor households pay more per room when living near wealthy areas.housing_cost: Average of all rent/purchase amounts, rent_per_room: How much each room costs monthly and rent_per_room_total: Total housing cost divided by rooms

3.5.1 Graph 3.1: Scatter plot matrix of renting

renters_df <- df_analysis |>
  filter(dwelling_tenure == "alquilada")

#housing_quality_score × rent_per_room, colored by district_type
p1 <- ggplot(renters_df, aes(x = housing_quality_score, y = rent_per_room_total, color = district_type)) +
  geom_point(alpha = 0.5, size = 1.5) +
  geom_smooth(method = "lm", se = FALSE, color = "black", linetype = "dashed", size = 0.7) +
  labs(
    title = "A) Housing Quality vs Rent per Room",
    x = "Housing Quality Score (0-1)",
    y = "Rent per Room"
  ) +
  scale_y_continuous(labels = label_number(preffix = " s/.")) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 10) +
  theme(
    legend.position = "bottom",
    legend.title = element_blank(),
    plot.title = element_text(hjust = 0, face = "bold", size = 11),
    axis.title = element_text(size = 9)
  ) +
  guides(color = guide_legend(nrow = 1))


# amenity_score × rent_per_room, colored by district_type
p2 <- ggplot(renters_df, aes(x = amenity_score, y = rent_per_room_total, color = district_type)) +
  geom_point(alpha = 0.5, size = 1.5) +
  geom_smooth(method = "lm", se = FALSE, color = "black", linetype = "dashed", size = 0.7) +
  labs(
    title = "B) Amenity Score vs Rent per Room",
    x = "Amenity Score (0-1)",
    y = ""
  ) +
  scale_y_continuous(labels = label_number(suffix = " Bs")) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 10) +
  theme(
    legend.position = "bottom",
    legend.title = element_blank(),
    plot.title = element_text(hjust = 0, face = "bold", size = 11),
    axis.title = element_text(size = 9)
  ) +
  guides(color = guide_legend(nrow = 1))

# Bottom-left: diversity_index × rent_per_room, colored by household_NSE
p3 <- ggplot(renters_df, aes(x = diversity_index, y = rent_per_room_total, color = ses_final)) +
  geom_point(alpha = 0.5, size = 1.5) +
  geom_smooth(method = "lm", se = FALSE, color = "black", linetype = "dashed", size = 0.7) +
  labs(
    title = "C) Diversity Index vs Rent per Room",
    x = "Diversity Index",
    y = "Rent per Room"
  ) +
  scale_y_continuous(labels = label_number(suffix = " Bs")) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 10) +
  theme(
    legend.position = "bottom",
    legend.title = element_blank(),
    plot.title = element_text(hjust = 0, face = "bold", size = 11),
    axis.title = element_text(size = 9)
  ) +
  guides(color = guide_legend(nrow = 1))

# Bottom-right: infrastructure_score × rent_per_room, colored by household_NSE
p4 <- ggplot(renters_df, aes(x = infrastructure_score, y = rent_per_room_total, color = ses_final)) +
  geom_point(alpha = 0.5, size = 1.5) +
  geom_smooth(method = "lm", se = FALSE, color = "black", linetype = "dashed", size = 0.7) +
  labs(
    title = "D) Infrastructure Score vs Rent per Room",
    x = "Infrastructure Score",
    y = ""
  ) +
  scale_y_continuous(labels = label_number(suffix = " Bs")) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 10) +
  theme(
    legend.position = "bottom",
    legend.title = element_blank(),
    plot.title = element_text(hjust = 0, face = "bold", size = 11),
    axis.title = element_text(size = 9)
  ) +
  guides(color = guide_legend(nrow = 1))


y_max <- max(renters_df$rent_per_room_total, na.rm = TRUE)
y_min <- min(renters_df$rent_per_room_total, na.rm = TRUE)


p1 <- p1 + scale_y_continuous(
  limits = c(y_min, y_max),
  labels = label_number(prefix = "s/. ")
)

p2 <- p2 + scale_y_continuous(
  limits = c(y_min, y_max),
  labels = label_number(prefix = "s/. ")
)

p3 <- p3 + scale_y_continuous(
  limits = c(y_min, y_max),
  labels = label_number(prefix = "s/. ")
)

p4 <- p4 + scale_y_continuous(
  limits = c(y_min, y_max),
  labels = label_number(prefix = "s/. ")
)

combined_plot <- (p1 + p2) / (p3 + p4) +
  plot_annotation(
    title = "THE NEIGHBORHOOD TAX: What Drives Rental Prices in Lima?",
    subtitle = "Scatter plot matrix examining rent per room across different neighborhood characteristics",
    theme = theme(
      plot.title = element_text(size = 16, face = "bold", hjust = 0.5),
      plot.subtitle = element_text(size = 12, hjust = 0.5, color = "gray40"),
      plot.caption = element_text(size = 9, hjust = 0.5, color = "gray50")
    )
  )

combined_plot

Rental prices in Lima rise sharply with neighborhood quality, far more than with housing quality, confirming that households pay a strong “neighborhood tax” for access to better infrastructure, amenities, and social environments.

3.5.2 Graph 3.2: District-Level Rent Differences by Socioeconomic Status

nse_renters <- df_analysis |>
  filter(
    dwelling_tenure == "alquilada",
    ses_final %in% c("c", "a_b")  # 
  )


district_rent <- nse_renters |>
  group_by(district, ses_final) |>
  summarise(
    median_rent = median(rent_per_room_total, na.rm = TRUE),
    n_households = n(),
    .groups = 'drop'
  ) |>
  filter(n_households >= 5)

district_diversity <- nse_renters |>
  distinct(district, diversity_index) |>
  arrange(diversity_index) |>
  mutate(district_rank = row_number())

graph2_data <- district_rent |>
  left_join(district_diversity, by = "district") |>
  arrange(district_rank) |>

  mutate(district = factor(district, levels = unique(district)))

# Create Cleveland dot plot
graph2 <- ggplot(graph2_data, aes(x = median_rent, y = reorder(district, district_rank))) +
  geom_point(aes(color = ses_final, shape = ses_final), size = 3) +
  geom_line(aes(group = district), color = "gray70", linetype = "dashed", size = 0.5) +
  labs(
    title = " District-Level Rent Differences by Socioeconomic Status",
    subtitle = "Districts ranked by diversity index | Comparison of SES-a_b vs SES-c renters",
    x = "Median Rent per Room (Bs)",
    y = "District (ranked by diversity index)",
    color = "SES",
    shape = "SES"
  ) +
  scale_x_continuous(labels = label_number(suffix = " s/.")) +
  scale_color_manual(values = c("a_b" = "#377EB8", "c" = "#E41A1C")) +
  scale_shape_manual(values = c("a_b" = 16, "c" = 17)) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 11) +
  theme(
    legend.position = "bottom",
    plot.title = element_text(size = 12, face = "bold", hjust = 0),
    plot.subtitle = element_text(size = 10, hjust = 0),
    axis.text.y = element_text(size = 8),
    panel.grid.major.y = element_line(color = "gray90", size = 0.3)
  )
graph2

We can see that class C districts typically have rental costs below 200 per room, as do most in levels A and B. However, there is an interesting insight: Surquillo, a class C district, has a cost of approximately 400. Surquillo borders San Borja and Miraflores, which are privileged areas. This suggests that Surquillo’s proximity to these districts has raised its rent per room compared to other class C areas.We observe a related insight in San Borja, a privileged area. Because it borders Surquillo, San Borja has the lowest rent per room among the level A and B neighborhoods.

The attached map, focused specifically on the districts of San Borja, Miraflores, and Surquillo, demonstrates this spatial relationship.

focused_districts <- c("SAN BORJA", "MIRAFLORES", "SURQUILLO")


focused_data <- df_analysis |>
  filter(district %in% focused_districts) |>
 
  group_by(district) |>
  mutate(
    district_avg_rent = mean(rent_per_room_total, na.rm = TRUE),
    district_type = ifelse(district %in% c("SAN BORJA", "MIRAFLORES"), 
                          "Privileged (a_b)", "Non-privileged (c)")
  ) |>
  ungroup()

df_data_sf_2 <- st_as_sf(focused_data, wkt = "geometry")


centroids <- df_data_sf_2 |>
  group_by(district, district_type, district_avg_rent) |>
  summarise(geometry = st_centroid(st_union(geometry)), .groups = "drop")

ggplot(df_data_sf_2) +

  geom_sf(
    aes(fill = ses_final), 
    color = "grey40",
    size = 0.3,
    alpha = 0.8
  ) +
  
  # 2. District borders
  geom_sf(
    fill = NA,
    color = "grey",
    size = 0.5
  ) +
  
  geom_sf_text(
    data = centroids,
    aes(label = paste0(district, "\nS/.", round(district_avg_rent, 0))),
    size = 3,
    fontface = "bold",
    color = "gray30"
  ) +
  
  scale_fill_manual(
    values = c(
      "a_b" = "#9B59B6",   
      "c" = "yellow"       
    ),
    name = "NSE Class",
    labels = c("a_b" = "Privileged", "c" = "Non-privileged")
  ) +
  
  labs(
    title = "The Proximity Premium: Evidence from 3 Districts",
    subtitle = "Surquillo (c) shows higher rents due to adjacency to privileged districts",
    caption = "Colors: Purple = Privileged (a_b), Yellow = Non-privileged (c)\nLabels show average rent per room in soles"
  ) +
  
  theme_minimal() +
  theme(
    plot.title = element_text(size = 16, face = "bold", hjust = 0.5),
    plot.subtitle = element_text(size = 12, hjust = 0.5, color = "gray40"),
    plot.caption = element_text(size = 9, hjust = 0.5, color = "gray50"),
    legend.position = "right",
    legend.title = element_text(size = 11, face = "bold"),
    axis.text = element_blank(),
    axis.title = element_blank(),
    panel.grid = element_blank()
  )

3.5.3 Graph 3.3: Utility Burden by District Type and Household NSE

poor_renters <- df_analysis |>
  filter(
    dwelling_tenure == "alquilada",
    ses_final %in% c("a_b", "c") 
  ) |>
  filter(!is.na(utility_burden_pct), !is.na(district_type))

graph3 <- ggplot(poor_renters, aes(x = district_type, y = utility_burden_pct, fill = ses_final)) +
  geom_boxplot(alpha = 0.7, outlier.size = 1, position = position_dodge(width = 0.75)) +
  stat_summary(
    fun = median,
    geom = "point",
    shape = 18,
    size = 3,
    color = "white",
    position = position_dodge(width = 0.75)
  ) +
  labs(
    title = "Utility Burden by District Type and Household NSE",
    subtitle = "Comparison of utility expenditure as percentage of total expenses (NSE-a_b vs NSE-c)",
    x = "District Type",
    y = "Utility Burden (%)",
    fill = "Household NSE"
  ) +
  scale_y_continuous(
    labels = label_percent(scale = 1), 
    limits = c(0, NA),
    expand = expansion(mult = c(0, 0.1))
  ) +
  scale_fill_manual(
    values = c("a_b" = "#377EB8", "c" = "#E41A1C"),
    labels = c("a_b" = "Higher SES (a_b)", "c" = "Lower SES (c)")
  ) +
  theme_minimal(base_size = 11) +
  theme(
    legend.position = "bottom",
    plot.title = element_text(size = 12, face = "bold", hjust = 0),
    plot.subtitle = element_text(size = 10, hjust = 0),
    axis.text.x = element_text(angle = 0, hjust = 0.5),
    panel.grid.major.x = element_blank(),
    legend.title = element_text(face = "bold")
  ) 

print(graph3)

Utility expenses are regressive in Lima: poorer households devote a larger share of their budget to basic services, and district composition matters—with homogeneous neighborhoods showing the highest burdens and mixed ones offering more financial relief.